Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

I'm sorry ahead of time for anyone who chooses to be offended by this. I'm offended by my continued silence so here it goes.

First of all abusive patterns start before any sexual act occurs. It's not as simple as the sexual act it'self. I can not for the life of me wrap my head around how this conversation has become logical for an admitted pedophile to "adopt" young girls. I've watched this from the sidelines and it truly amazes me how well spoken and articulative you are Joe. In one hand I find myself wanting to agree that there is a problem with discrimination of pedophiles who have "never" hurt a child. I watch people as rational as Madbunny[1] find themselves agreeing with several points made by Joe. I really try as hard as I can to grasp this concept... Then I imagine a young girl having a conversation with Joe. How easily she could be persuaded to giving up consent. Joe you are master linguist of Jedi level. You arguably have the power to make the most rational of us all fall to your mighty sword of words. But I don't buy it. Maybe it's my own self preservation as a mother, and maternal instinctive drive to say "this is not right". But those instincts are equally as rational and logical as your sexual attraction to children.

I think there have been several times where Gnu has adequately pointed out irrational thought processes made by Joe in regards to his "fantasy" as Gnu called it. These thought process are dangerous. They are what I consider "red flags" or warning signs that should be addressed. And I'm not talking about here on this forum, I'm talking about IRL.

People keep wanting to compare this to gay rights. Apples and oranges man. Being gay is not the same thing as being a pedophile. The level of potential harm to a child makes this different. Potential harm doesn't imply that a pedophile will ever abuse a child. But if you identify thought processes that are destructive to the welfare of a child you have a problem. When you can paint a picture in your head that rationally justifies the objectification of a child who hasn't mentally matured enough to be able to make an informed decision, you have a problem.

In the "other" thread we are talking about how the possession of child porn should be legal. Some of us have rationalized this down to minimal sentencing; I can concede to that. But I can't understand how we can have that conversation, a thread started requesting donations for a child's operation, and then a thread created to help raise funds for a porno. Now I can't link these conversations and say with any certainty that we are being manipulated or that these "funds" will or will not be properly used.

What I can say is we have an admitted pedophile caring for two children; one of which authorities may not even knows exists. That pedophile has asked for money for an operation in a tone that doesn't represent any attempt has been made to prevent this child from having a negative self image. I feel like I'm watching an infomercial on TV that appeals to pity. IF I feel this way about how the story was portrayed to me how does this child feel? Well I assume, whether I'm justified or not, pretty pitiful themselves. That is sad.

Then funds are asked for a porn production in the name of LGBT with no proof that the 50K desired will help the community at all. So I feel very much like we are being conned by a well spoken and articulative conman. I may not be the best debater, have the best written or verbal communication skills. I may not be able to slice logic down the very finest of details. I don't always separate emotion from logic as well as some of you. But in this case, I think we should appeal to our emotions. Because it's the red flag that warns us of danger. And IMHO you, Joe, are dangerous man.